My commentary on the Bible's teaching that Jesus of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament come in the flesh, and on Jehovah's Witness issues. I am an Australian evangelical Christian in my 60s and have never been a Jehovah's Witness.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

[Above: A reproduction of the 1931 International Bible Students Association Convention program cover. As its pro-JW "Our Theocratic Heritage" caption says, it "raised a great deal of interest because no one knew what the `J.W.' on it meant-until it was announced that they would take on a new name- `Jehovah's Witnesses'!" (my emphasis).]

responded that because of its length and multiple points raised in your comment, I would answer it in a separate post. I have now moved house, unpacked my books, so I hope now to begin catching up on my backlog! Your words are >bold to distinguish them from mine.

>Briefly reviewed some of your blog content while searching for some other information. However, I thought it important to make a comment on a few points you made. >>First, Mr. Rutherford did not "invent" the name Jehovah's Witnesses.

"Also the name `Jehovah's Witnesses' was not used until it was invented by `Judge' Rutherford in 1931, i.e. 52 years after Charles Taze Russell founded the Watchtower Society in 1879. (see `tagline': "JWs Proclaimers").

As the quote referred to stated, `Judge' Rutherford "presented another resolution, this one entitled `A New Name,' which was climaxed by the declaration: `We desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah's witnesses. ... They would henceforth be known as Jehovah's Witnesses!" (my emphasis):

"A milestone, though, was reached at a convention held in Columbus, Ohio, in 1931. On Sunday, July 26, at noon, Brother Rutherford delivered the public discourse `The Kingdom, the Hope of the World,' which was broadcast over a vast radio hookup, with more than 300 additional stations later rebroadcasting the message. At the end of the discourse, Brother Rutherford served notice on Christendom by reading a stinging resolution entitled `Warning From Jehovah,' which was addressed `To the Rulers and to the People.' To his invitation that they adopt the resolution, the entire visible audience stood and shouted, `Aye!' Telegrams later received indicated that many of those listening on the radio likewise raised their voices in agreement. From one o'clock, when the public discourse was finished, until four o'clock, when Brother Rutherford reentered the auditorium, the atmosphere was charged with excitement. Brother Rutherford had specially requested that everyone who was really interested in the noonday warning to Christendom be in his seat at four o'clock. Promptly at four, Brother Rutherford began by stating that he regarded what he was about to say as of vital importance to everyone who could hear his voice. His listeners were keenly interested. During his discourse he presented another resolution, this one entitled `A New Name,' which was climaxed by the declaration: `We desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah's witnesses. `The thrilled convent' again jumped to their feet with the ringing shout `Aye!' They would henceforth be known as Jehovah's Witnesses!" (WB&TS, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn NY, 1993, pp.79,82. Emphasis original).

That the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was a new invention of `Judge' Rutherford is evident in that none of those present at the 1931 Columbus Ohio Convention could not even guess what the initials "J.W." stood for, until Rutherford told them:

"In exalting Jehovah's name, however, the convention of God's people at Columbus, Ohio, July 24-30, 1931, was a milestone. . It was unique in that extension conventions were scheduled for 165 other places throughout the earth. But that was not the most important factor. There was something much more significant. It was linked with the enigmatic letters `JW' appearing on the printed assembly program and the title page of The Messenger, the convention newspaper-in fact, seen in many places. `When we got near the assembly grounds,' remarks Burnice E. Williams, Sr., `we saw "JW" all over the place. But not knowing what it stood for, we were all wondering, "What is this JW for?"' Sister Herschel Nelson recalls: `Speculations were made as to what JW stood for-Just Wait, Just Watch, and the correct one ..." (WB&TS, "1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, 1975, p.149).

First, those two words "Jehovah's Witnesses" do not appear together in that verse, nor are they in that order, even in your own New World Translation:

Isa 43:10 NWT "YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none."

"The meaning of `JW' was revealed on Sunday, July 26, 1931, when thrilled conventioners heartily adopted a resolution presented by J. F. Rutherford and entitled `A New Name.' It said, in part: ... therefore we joyfully embrace and take the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named, and we desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah's witnesses.'" (WB&TS, 1975, pp.149-150).

So those two words, "Jehovah's Witnesses" were invented by `Judge' Rutherford. And what's more, it wasn't for any Biblical or theological reason, but for the purely political reason of, "an effort to distance his followers from the" followers of the Society's first President, Charles Taze Russell (1852 -1916):

"Jehovah's Witnesses To members of the sect the designation `Jehovah's Witnesses' is no mere denominational name; rather, it identifies them as God's earthly witnesses to mankind. They believe that God gave them this name when he inspired Isaiah 43:10, `'YOU are my witnesses,' is the utterance of Jehovah...' (NWT) In actuality it was Watchtower president Joseph Rutherford who selected the name. On July 26,1931 he presented a resolution to assembled followers, asking them to approve the new name `Jehovah's Witnesses.' Prior to that time they had referred to themselves as `Bible Students,' whereas orthodox Christians called them `Russellites.' Following the death of founder Charles Taze Russell, his successor J. F. Rutherford's authoritarian methods provoked a schism among the Bible Students, with some adhering to the Watchtower corporation while others formed competing groups. It was in an effort to distance his followers from the latter that Rutherford proposed the new name `Jehovah's Witnesses.'" (Reed, D.A., "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," [1996], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.144-145. Emphasis original).

Third, in the context, Jehovah was speaking to "Israel" in the 6th century BC, not to Americans in the 20th century AD, as the opening verses of Isaiah chapter 43 in the NWT make clear:

Isa 43:1-3 NWT. And now this is what Jehovah has said, your Creator, O Jacob, and your Former, O Israel: "Do not be afraid, for I have repurchased you. I have called [you] by your name. You are mine. 2 In case you should pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not flood over you. In case you should walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, neither will the flame itself singe you. 3 For I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Savior. I have given Egypt as a ransom for you, E•thi•o´pi•a and Se´ba in place of you.

"Isaiah 43:10-'Witnesses' of Jehovah?The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders Isaiah 43:10, `'You are my witnesses,' is the utterance of Jehovah, `even my servant whom I have chosen.' Appropriating this verse for themselves, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that out of all the religious groups on planet earth, they alone are chosen by God and have been deemed His `witnesses.' The Biblical Teaching. In context, Isaiah 43:10 is referring strictly to Israel as a collective witness to God's majesty, authority, faithfulness, and truth. This is in marked contrast to pagans who cannot witness to such attributes in their false gods. Israel as a witness was to testify that Yahweh is the only true God. Now, here is the point to emphasize: It is a wild, wild leap to take a verse referring to Israel as God's witness to the pagan nations in Old Testament times (over seven centuries before the time of Christ) and claim its fulfillment in a modern-day religious group some nineteen centuries after the time of Christ. This is a classic example of what James W. Sire calls `Scripture twisting.'" (Rhodes, R., "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, 1993, Reprinted, 2006, p.29. Emphasis original).

As former Watchtower Society Governing Body member, the late Raymond Franz, correctly pointed out, "This scripture, however, simply presents a figurative court scene, in which all nations are gathered and before whom the Israelites are called upon by God to bear testimony to His saving power exercised on their behalf" (my emphasis):

"It was in 1931 that Joseph F. Rutherford, Russell's successor to the Watch Tower presidency, selected the name of `Jehovah's Witnesses' for the organizational membership. Rutherford stated that the name chosen was `the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named, and we desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, `Jehovah's Witnesses.' Isaiah 43:10-12; 62:2 and Revelation 12:17 were cited as basis for the adoption of this name. [Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pages 125, 126] A reading of these passages, however, does not in any way reveal that God purposed that his words there spoken were to be formed into a distinctive name for Christians to bear as much as 2,600 years later. Isaiah 43:10-12 is the primary text used by the organization to justify its chosen name. This scripture, however, simply presents a figurative court scene, in which all nations are gathered and before whom the Israelites are called upon by God to bear testimony to His saving power exercised on their behalf. Why, out of all the statements God makes regarding the nation of Israel, should these words become `the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named' to be placed upon Christians today?" (Franz, R., "In Search of Christian Freedom," [1991], Commentary Press: Atlanta GA, Second edition, 2007, pp.489-490. Emphasis original).

Fourth, the Watchtower ignores the remainder of the same verse, in which Jehovah states, even in the Society's own New World Translation, that "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.":

Isa 43:10 NWT "YOU are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none."

Yet "despite the testimony of Scripture that `before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me' (Is 43:10, KJV) , the `a god' fallacy [in John 1:1 NWT] is pursued and taught by Jehovah's Witnesses in direct contradiction to God's Word":

"Since Jehovah is the only God, then how can the Logos be `a god,' a lesser god than Jehovah, as Jehovah's Witnesses declare in John 1:1? (Emphatic Diaglott and NWT). Many times Jehovah declares His existence as the `only' God and Saviour (Is 41:4; 43:11-13; 44:6; 45:5; 48:12). This is indeed irrefutable proof, since Christ could not be our Saviour or Redeemer if He were not Jehovah, for Jehovah is the only Saviour (Is 43:11). However, despite the testimony of Scripture that `before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me' (Is 43:10, KJV) , the `a god' fallacy is pursued and taught by Jehovah's Witnesses in direct contradiction to God's Word." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," [1953], Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Revised, 1981, pp.57-58. Emphasis original).

"In view of such passages [as Dt 32:39; Isa 43:10; 44:8; 45:5], it is patently obvious that the interpretation of John 1:1 that which argues for both a `God Almighty' and a lesser `god' cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture":

"Only One True God Having shown that the Watchtower Society consistently misrepresents what various scholars have said about John 1:1, you must then emphasize that the polytheistic teaching that there is both a `God Almighty' and a lesser `mighty god' goes against the clear teaching of Scripture that there is only one true God (e.g., John 17:3). Note, for example, the following key passages from the Old Testament: o `See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me' (Deuteronomy 32:39 NASB, emphasis added). o `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isaiah 43:10 NASB, emphasis added). o `Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none' (Isaiah 44:8 NASB, emphasis added). o `I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God' (Isaiah 45:5 NASB, emphasis added). In view of such passages, it is patently obvious that the interpretation of John 1:1 that which argues for both a `God Almighty' and a lesser `god' cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture. Ask ... How do you reconcile Jehovah-God's statement in Deuteronomy 32:39 that `there is no god besides me' as well as His statement in Isaiah 45:5 that `besides Me there is no God'-with the Watchtower teaching that there is both a `God Almighty' and a `mighty god'?"(Rhodes, R., "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, 1993, Reprinted, 2006, pp.105-106. Emphasis original).

"Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10) ... Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him. ... [they] translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god'" (my emphasis):

"The common pagan opinion was that the world is populated by many gods. Such people who believe in the existence of more than one god are called polytheists. ... Although Jehovah clearly said, `Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me' (Isa. 43:10), some pseudo-Christian groups, like the ... Jehovah's Witnesses, will not believe Him. ... Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheists. ... Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1, `In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.' Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus (the Word) is the God, but another god! There is no way John could have meant that Jesus was a god. John was a Jewish Christian, a monotheist! He did not believe there were any other gods! That is why most recognized translations will read `and the Word was God." (Magnani, D. & Barrett, A., "The Watchtower Files: Dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, 1985, pp.123-124. Emphasis original).

"... Jehovah's Witnesses. Ironically, the passage of Scripture on which this name is based ... states that the primary truth to which those witnesses were to testify was that Jehovah is the only God and the only Savior (Isa. 43:10-11) ... By their teaching that Jesus was a created god and a divine savior under Jehovah, the Jehovah's Witnesses prove themselves unfaithful witnesses" (my emphasis):

"Who Is on Jehovah's Side? Jehovah's Witnesses take great pride in their constant use of the name Jehovah, even to the point of calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. Ironically, the passage of Scripture on which this name is based indicates that they are not faithful witnesses to Jehovah, since it states that the primary truth to which those witnesses were to testify was that Jehovah is the only God and the only Savior (Isa. 43:10-11). By their teaching that Jesus was a created god and a divine savior under Jehovah, the Jehovah's Witnesses prove themselves unfaithful witnesses. True witnesses to Jehovah will accept the Bible which Jehovah inspired and preserved through the centuries with his message intact (Isa. 40:8; 55:10-11; Matt. 5:18). They will therefore reject the New World Translation, which adds to God's word to change its clear teaching that Jehovah is no longer concerned that we use that name, and makes many other doctrinally significant alterations of God's word (Prov. 30:6)." (Bowman, R.M., Jr., "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1991, pp.121-122. Emphasis original).

Fifth, "In the OT God commissions his people ` "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD' (Is. 43:10); yet in Acts 1:8Jesus sends out his apostles with identical words `You will be my witnesses" (my emphasis):

"God's witness One final link between Jesus and Yahweh may be noted. In the OT God commissions his people ` "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD' (Is. 43:10); yet in Acts 1:8 Jesus sends out his apostles with identical words `You will be my witnesses'." (Milne, B., "Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief," [1982], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, 1988, Fifth printing, pp.131-132. Emphasis original).

Which is more evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, come in the flesh!

>Second, One of your challenge questions for the publications "What does the Bible Really Teach?" was, "If someone one a desert island had only the Bible, would they come to the same understanding as Jehovah's Witnesses?"

Yes. If what the Watchtower taught was what the Bible taught, then if someone read only the Bible they would come to believe what the Watchtower teaches. But the Watchtower admitted that if a JW "read the Bible exclusively" then they will come to believe what Christianity teaches:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." ("Serving Jehovah `Shoulder to Shoulder'," Watchtower, Aug 15, 1981, pp.28-29, p.29).

>Presumingyou believe this an incisive and not a disingenuous question would require the reader to also understand that you deny Phillip's apostolic account of the Ethiopian eunuch who responded to Phillip's question, ?Do you understand what you are reading?" with "How can I,..."unless someone explains it to me??

That is a fallacious example because it was only in Acts 8 when: 1) the New Testament had not yet been written; and 2) the Ethiopian Eunuch had not yet heard about Jesus, as your own NWT states, "Philip ... declared to him the good news about Jesus" (my emphasis):

Acts 8:34-35 NWT "34 In answer the eunuch said to Philip: "I beg you, About whom does the prophet say this? About himself or about some other man?" 35 Philip opened his mouth and, starting with this Scripture, he declared to him the good news about Jesus. "

>As for Jesus being Jehovah, certainly we would disagree. Jesus Christ, known to the world as the Savior, has a name that means "Jehovah is Salvation".

Indeed! Thanks for helping me make my point that Jesus is Jehovah, come in the flesh.

>The title Christ means "Anointed One". One does not anoint oneself. Who anointed Jesus? Math. 3:17 "This is my Son, The one whom I have approved."

Thanks for bringing up one of the many Trinitarian passages of the New Testament, even in the Watchtower's own Bible, where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together:

Mat 3:16-17 NWT. 16 After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved."

So the answer to your question is that Jehovah God the Father anointed Jesus, who was the incarnate Jehovah God the Son, by Jehovah God the Holy Spirit, the One Triune God.

>Would the humble Lord and Christ be appreciative or incensed that many today take credit from his Father and incorrectly give it to him? This is the true meaning of blasphemy.

Jesus has already answered that question for you, again even in your own New World Translation. He has stated that "all may honor [Gk. present active "may keep on honoring"] the Son just as they honor the Father" and that "He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father":

Jn 5:22-23 NWT. "22 For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him"

So the Watchtower, by its refusal to honor Jesus the Son, "just as they honor the Father" and punishes JWs who do, "does not honor the Father"!

But if you chose to believe the Watchtower rather than Jesus, and refuse to "honor the Son just as" you "honor the Father, then consider that verse above (and may others e.g. Jn 5:26-27; Act 10:41-42; 17:31; Rom 2:16; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1) which warns that you are not going to be judged by the Watchtower, but both it and you are going to be judged by Jesus the Son!

Policies

Policies Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "my last post to this blog"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will normally be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.